11 Responses to “Major Changes Coming to Photography in the Next Couple of Months!”

I’m sure that Nikon and Canon have not been idle when it comes to new product development, but I highly doubt that Jared has any inside information on timing. Both Canon and Nikon don’t leak new product information too far in advance of availability. The only way I would fathom them doing that is if they were radically losing customers to Sony and are trying to stem that exodus until they are ready to ship. If Jared turns out to be right on Nikon and Canon switching lens standards with a change to mirrorless, I’m in two minds over immediately selling all of my EF glass or sticking with DSLR’s and keeping a sharp eye out for people selling off theirs.

I’m also not a fan of DSLR video. If I were to add video to my offerings, I would do it with a dedicated video camera. The feature set, controls and connections on a dedicated video camera are optimized towards making it easy to shoot video and not hampered by having not just roots, but branches in the stills world. I don’t see it as a bad thing to have some video features on a DSLR for incidental work, but I sometimes bang on things with a wrench rather than a hammer although I’ll go and get the hammer if I’m going to be driving a handful of nails. I see comparing DSLR’s for video qualities the same as comparing which brand of adjustable wrench is best for driving 16d vinyl coated sinkers.

Like all tools, each has a job that is best suited for it. I agree with Ken…if I were to want to shoot video, I would pick the best tool for the job…a dedicated video camera. I know it’s more expensive that way, but I could rent instead of purchasing to defray the considerable cost of a camera and cine lenses, microphones, continuous lights, etc.

A further consideration for a Canon and/or Nikon mirrorless introduction is the cost. Unless I’m truly dissatisfied with my DSLR system, or itching for an upgrade, that will truly make a difference in my business (and generate enough extra revenue to justify the cost), I would wait to make a change. I suspect that Canon and/or Nikon will not “hit it out of the park” on their first try, just like Sony did. Remember when Sony first started making cameras? It was a slow start to say the least.

I’m not sure I can watch the whole video without laughing my butt off. Major changes? really…?! Canon and Nikon getting their butts in gear with current trends is a major change? First off, Sony has Minolta DNA both in the products and the philosophy, and they were always focused on innovation.

I remember when Nikon introduced the F4, which was the top of the heap for photographers… but nonetheless was a complete disaster in low light focusing. It would rack back and forth hunting for something with enough contrast in low light. In the same time frame, Minolta introduced the 9xi, which could focus in complete darkness on a white wall with no detail (rated at -1 ev) , because I think it was the first to project an led pattern to assist it. Meanwhile, Canon and Nikon had these worthless little LED white lights on the front of the cameras that would attempt to throw more light on the scene, but were fairly inept for the task, and pre-announced your shot to everyone you pointed the camera at. Surprise! not! lol

By all accounts, both Nikon and Canon will introduce FF mirrorless bodies this year that will be adequate, but still years behind Sony innovation. And then they will slowly add features every year, but probably never keep up with Sony’s commitment to innovation, because innovation was never their wheelhouse in the first place. Their forte is producing very solid but conservative performance. So forgive me if I laugh, but I wouldn’t call this “major changes”. Unless… they figure out how to build them to accept all the lenses they produced over the years. I still would categorize that as major change, but it would be hella marketing strategy and probably the only thing that would put a dent in Sony’s sales.

Oh, and I’m no fanboy. I still shoot just about everything. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Samsung, & Panasonic. They all have their strengths and weakness’s. I tend to look for great lenses, and then find bodies to suit them. In particular, body/lens combos that rate high on DxO, since regardless of innovation, IQ is still king. And that said, Sony A7R series have been on top for half a decade, both in IQ and innovation. These new bodies from Canon and Nikon are not going after the A7R, they seem to be looking at the A7 series to compete with.

For the life of me I cannot understand the rush to “mirrorless”camera bodies. I understand they are lighter and smaller. But that seems to be it. How are they better than our DSLR’s? Personally, I don’t want a camera body without a viewfinder, a real viewfinder (not an electronic one) and I want my camera body to have some heft and size. I like them to feel good in my hands. Rant over.

I’m assuming there will be 2-3 iterations of the mirrorless FF cameras before they are worth their purchase. Even then, you’re basically paying for less weight. When one of these cameras surpasses the 5d mk iv (or iii) in more ways then just payload, then I’ll be interested, maybe. It seems to me these cameras will be more attractive to new photographers or hobbyists with bankrolls, not necessarily established photographers with a strong inventory of equipment already in place.

I will take Michael’s comment a step further, and say I do not understand any talk about camera bodies relative to each other at all. It is totally useless. If people spent a quarter of the time they did talking about this stuff on things like lighting or client acquisition, they would actually be getting somewhere.

Look at it like this… if you go to the next pro tournament and look in all the pros’ bags, you will find clubs from a variety of companies. But the club model they use means nothing. Do yourself a huge favor and get it through your head… it means NOTHING.

The hours of practice and level of talent that have to play golf, well that does mean something. Everything actually.

People need to drop this, for their own good. I understand if you shoot portraits, weddings, sports… a good camera to cover all your needs would be important. But, this is a real estate photography group, and if you only shoot real estate, flip a coin to pick your camera system and start spending your time, brain power and money on things that actually matter, because the camera system you use is not one of them.

@Andrew, It is worth talking about if Canon and Nikon also change their lens standard due to being able to get the lens closer to the sensor on a mirrorless model. If that’s the case, those new lenses are not going to be useable on older bodies. Do you make the investment in a new 70-200mm for your DSLR or do you hold off and wait for a C or N mirrorless body that is mostly debugged?

As you say, the camera gear isn’t the limiting factor in making good images past a certain level, but from an investment standpoint, it’s a good idea not to invest too much in an old standard that is going to be unsupported in a relatively short period of time. It’s like computers; if you can stay on the leading edge and sell your last generation box while it still has value, you aren’t stuck with technology that is several generations old and would sell for very little.

I can’t describe the level of apathy I have toward Canon and Nikon’s announcements. What makes it especially irrelevant to me is the fact that Canon and Nikon are primarily camera and photography companies, and Sony manages to innovate more in their cameras while producing all manner of electronics like televisions, Blu-Ray players, gaming consoles, etc. That said, mirrorless IS NOT essential and anyone working with a good DSLR (crop or FF) that produces the results they need in whatever method might think twice before spending money to buy one. But I love my Sony A6000. It was just a jump in DR and features from my (now) backup camera, Canon T5. Is the Canon a bad camera? Nope! But it lacks the DR and features of newer cameras by way of being older and was probably less innovative than some other cameras when it was a brand new model (though the T5 was an entry-level DSLR even then–despite this, I’m still not sure you can find one under $400 and it’s a very sturdy camera as opposed to Sony’s mirrorless line).

So if you’re looking to have a newer body with more features that suit you better, then you could do worse than upgrading to a mirrorless system. But I think it’s only worth upgrading if the upgrade will end up paying for itself in a month or two, if you already own a body from the same manufacturer and you can keep your old lenses, and, again, if you have an older DSLR that produces photos which require more post to get the most out of the lower DR. If it isn’t really an upgrade, then why bother? If your DSLR breaks and turns into a lemon, then upgrading at a lower cost for one of Sony’s mirrorless line wouldn’t be a bad idea.

I will say people need to really think about why they want to “upgrade,” be it a different body or going from DSLR to mirrorless (which is more like a lateral move rather than a true upgrade when talking about the merits of DSLR vs mirrorless standing on their own). I saw one guy on Facebook who had a Sony a6500 and was wanting to sell it and get a 6300 for some reason, which made me scratch my head. Others want to upgrade to FF, which is fine if you’re doing other types of photography but is absolutely not needed for real estate and not worth spending the couple thousand dollars or more unless you’ve got discretionary income.

What matters more is lenses and skill in composition and lighting–almost no matter what DSLR or mirrorless body you’ve got.